Ignatius Pew Missal's use of Weber's Proper of the Mass
  • MarkB
    Posts: 312
    I don't have the books to be able to check for myself, so I'm asking here:

    Which of the simple antiphon settings in Weber's The Proper of the Mass are used in the Ignatius Pew Missal? Is it always the fourth (simple) option, or does it vary between the third and fourth options?
  • TCJ
    Posts: 688
    It varies between the two if I remember right. I don't have the black book near me at the moment.
  • davido
    Posts: 236
    Neither. The Ignatius pee missal ones are set to a Gregorian psalm tone which does not match what is in his Proper of the Mass book.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 688
    I believe he is referring to the antiphon and not the verses. The IPM does use one of the four options in the black book, but the verses are different for sure.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 312
    To be more clear, I'm asking what the relationship of dependence is between the Pew Missal and Weber's Proper of the Mass. What does the Pew Missal use from Weber's collection? Are they intended to be used together?

    For the past several weeks I've tuned into a Mass stream at a parish that uses the Pew Missal, at which the cantor has been chanting the proper antiphons from the Pew Missal, along with verses to organ accompaniment. It has struck me as intolerably monotonous and dreary week after week. On top of that, they also chant the ICEL ordinary with organ accompaniment. I admire the effort to do things right, but it's possible to do things right in an ineffective way.

    Weber's more complex chants are good. I'm not convinced that the simplified versions work well week after week, as in the Pew Missal approach. Psalm toning everything at Mass and having the same-sounding organ accompaniment sustained underneath gets boring really quickly.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,852
    Most publishers have at least a couple of sample pages viewable to entice purchasers, but it seems this Missal does not. Looking through the promotional video and pausing at the fuzzy images of books, I think the answer is option iii for the two I can identify. That is the one described as Gregorian psalm tone, as @davido said.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,852
    But, on the question of whether simple chants work well week after week, surely if you want the congregation to sing them then YES. The complexity of Gregorian Mass propers evolved for professional singers. One purpose of simple chant is to keep the congregation together, all congregations contain some impatient ____s who gabble any spoken response. The other purpose is to help focus on the words, again simplicity is needed. Sustaining musical interest is totally irrelevant, in congregational chant it distracts, and when listening to either cantor or schola. it obscures the words.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 496
    Complex chant doesn't "obscure the words" unless the performer is technically or musically incapable of performing it. The most florid examples from the Gregorian repertoire draw attention to and enhance the meaning of the text, rather than making it unintelligible.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,577
    I have both The Propers of the Mass and Ignatius Pew Missal at my job: To my recollection (books are at churc), about 98% of the Entrance and Communion Antiphons in the IPM are option iv of the Propers (Gregorian Psalm-tone, simple, if both simple and solemn are given in the Propers), the remaining are option iii (Meinrad tone). I recall, I think, only one situation where an antiphon in IPM was different than that of the Propers: the Pew Missal gave an Introit in the simple Gregorian Tone, the Propers only gave the solemn Gregorian and Meinrad; it wasn't a problem of course, the choir sang from IPM, and the cantors chanted the verses from Propers (I made xeroxes of the verses to make life easier).
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • davido
    Posts: 236
    I would agree with Mark. People have an innate desire to sing good melody and everyone appreciates interesting music, even if they can’t explain why. Introducing unmusical music for the sake of tradition is only going to make people dislike tradition.

    Fr Weber is a fine enough musician to offer the simple chants as a stopgap measure if one can’t learn all the florid chants for a given week. I am sure that he would not recommend them as an “only and forever” option. The Pew Missal also recommends the simple chants in conjunction with some hymns.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,852
    If you want the people to sing an unfamiliar text, without rehearsal, the chant needs to be simple, and to a familiar pattern. (As with the celebrant for the orations.) That may not be what you want, it is certainly not the main thing I (as a PIP) want.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,852
    Now I have cleared the blockage that was preventing me seeing the sample of the Ignatius Pew Missal I can see 6 antiphons. 5 are the Gregorian psalm tone (type iii) & one is the English psalm tone (type iv), where there is a choice the simpler of the pair is chosen. However note that three of them are modified from the setting in the 'Proper of the Mass' book. So the answer seems to be - mainly the Gregorian but not always.
    7,iiib; 22/23,iiia/b; 30,iii; 45,iiib; 2153,revised iv; 2172,iiib
    Salieri - I think you are mistaken about the Meinrad tones. A key difference between the English and Gregorian styles is the Gregorian phrases a have beginning, middle and end, whereas the English launch straight into the tenor, as indeed the Meinrad tones do. But the antiphon tones used in these books are not the same as the Meinrad psalm tones. Though there are a very few antiphons in the Propers otM notated in Meinrad tones, and presented quite distinctly eg #2144.
    Thanked by 2MarkB Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,577
    Mea culpa: I was merely using 'Meinrad Tone' as a catch-all name for new psalmtones for English texts. I should have been clearer.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins